4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Warszawa.
5.  On 8 February 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment against the State Treasury.
6.  On 16 December 1999 and on 23 March 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held hearings.
7.  On 26 June 2000 the applicant amended his claim.
8.  On 24 October 2000 the court held a hearing.
9.  On 26 February 2001 the applicant again amended his claim.
10.  On 27 February 2001, 9 August 2001 and 17 January 2002 the court held hearings.
11.  On 19 March and 10 April 2002 the applicant amended his claim.
12.  On 21 March 2002 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer informed the court that he had requested the Regional Bar Association to release him from his duties as the applicant's representative.
13.  On 8 April 2002 the Regional Bar Association appointed a new legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant.
14.  On 28 May 2002 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer requested the court to be given time to get acquainted with the case.
15.  In October 2003 the applicant requested the court to appoint a different legal-aid lawyer as the current one failed to protect his interests.
16.  On 9 October and December 2003 the court held hearings.
17.  On 8 December 2003 the Regional Bar Association assigned a new legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant.
18.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant amended his claim.
19.  On 24 February 2004 the court held a hearing. A hearing scheduled for 14 October 2004 was cancelled as the presiding judge assigned to the case resigned from his job.
20.  On 20 January 2005 the court held a hearing.
21.  On 25 January 2005 the court requested the defendant to submit copies of case-files concerning enforcement proceedings instituted against the applicant which were necessary for preparing an expert report.
22.  A hearing scheduled for 11 April 2005 was cancelled as the defendant failed to submit the relevant documents within the prescribed time-limit.
23.  In May 2005 an expert submitted a report.
24.  On 8 June and 12 October 2005, 25 January and 17 May 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court held hearings.
25.  Between May and November 2006 the court dealt with the applicant's requests to order another expert report.
26.  On 24 November 2006 an expert submitted a report.
27.  On 25 January and 16 May 2007 the court held hearings.
28.  On 12 June 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claim.
29.  On 1 August 2007 the applicant appealed.
30.  On 18 August 2007 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer informed the court that she requested the Regional Bar Association to be released from her duties pointing out to the applicant's lack of trust in her.
31.  On 17 September 2007 the Regional Bar Association assigned T.L. as the applicant's legal-aid lawyer.
32.  On 17 September 2007 and 18 February 2008 the applicant amended his claim.
33.  On 27 May 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing.
34.  On 8 October 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case.
35.  On 17 December 2008 and again on 19 February 2009 the applicant amended his claim.
36.  On 2 April 2009 the applicant informed the court that he resigned from being represented by T.L. and requested the court to appoint a new legal-aid lawyer: a legal adviser and not an advocate. On the same date the court ordered another expert report.
37.  On 17 June 2009 the court dismissed the applicant's request to appoint another legal-aid lawyer. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision.
38.  On 7 December 2009 and 12 April 2010 an expert requested the court to extend the time-limit for submitting a report.
39.  On 10 May 2010 an expert submitted a report.
40.  The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
41.  On 6 April 2009 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
42.  On 15 May 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's complaint stating that there were no significant periods of unjustified inactivity for which the Warsaw Regional Court had been responsible. In its analysis the court examined only the course of the proceedings after 8 October 2008 stating that the applicant's complaint could only refer to the current stage of the proceedings i.e. after the remittal.